| Humane Vitae 35 Years Later | Birth Control in the Catholic Church |
| James
| January 03, 2003, 12:43 PM
|
| Humane Vitae 35 Years Later
I thought it appropriate to reflect on some of the writings of Fr. McBrien, 35 years post HV. http://129.74.54.81/rm/FMPro I thought the above two very applicable. Any comments? |
|
| momZ
| January 03, 2003, 05:18 PM
|
| Try this link and also this one. My favorite quote was: The most interesting intervention, however, was that of Archbishop John R. Quinn of San Francisco.[He noted that many men and women of good will do not accept the "intrinsic evil of each and every use of contraception." Indeed, he said, a majority of priests and theologians, "whose learning, faith, discretion, and dedication to the church are beyond doubt," hold this view. The problem, he warned, "is not going to be solved or reduced merely by a simple reiteration of past formulations or by ignoring the fact of dissent." Happy New Year, momZ |
|
| moderator
Administrator | January 05, 2003, 12:11 PM
|
| james, i tried several different browsers but was unable to access that url. is it by any chance incomplete? | |
| James
| January 05, 2003, 03:15 PM
|
| Sorry, but thanks to Momz' links you can still access both pertinent articles. Maybe my browser is old, and is giving me erroneous urls, but this should get you to them both. | |
| Frank
| January 07, 2003, 09:50 AM
|
| Humane Vitae, Yesterday, Today and Forever There are two basic truths that each person has to admit in this life: 1. There is a God. 2. It isn’t me. To understand these lessons is to understand why abortion is wrong. Only God has absolute dominion over human life. "None of us lives as his own master and none of us dies as his own master" (Rom.14:7). This is also the reason that contraception is wrong. We know that human life begins at conception. But God’s dominion over human life does not begin at conception. It begins in eternity. "God chose us in Him before the world began" (Eph.1:4). "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" (Jer.1:5) We exist in time because God chose us from eternity. A human decision to prevent our conception is a trespass on God’s dominion over human life. It is not, of course, the same type of trespass as abortion (unless the so-called "contraceptive" actually is abortifacient). Abortion destroys a human life. Contraception distorts the meaning of human sexuality. Both offend God because they fail to acknowledge Him as Lord of the entire process of human reproduction and life! It is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge that there are circumstances in which a couple should not have a child. There can be medical, social, financial, psychological, or other reasons for this. To acknowledge God’s dominion does not mean to act imprudently. Methods of natural family planning are legitimate. In planning one’s family, however, one may never destroy the meaning of sexual union on one’s own initiative. In natural family planning, using the body’s cycles of infertile days, God closes the door to life. In contraception, we close the door. We have no authority to do so. Scripture is clear that children are a blessing. "Happy the man who has filled his quiver with these arrows!" (Psalm 127:5). Scripture is also clear that in being generous with life, we must put all our doubts and fears in God’s hands. "Do not let your hearts be troubled," Christ says. "Trust in God and trust in me" (Jn.14:1). May we trust Him as we build our families in fruitful love! Trust in God, Francis |
|
| Hugh
(hugh.oregan_NO_SPAM@pobox.com) Member | January 07, 2003, 03:27 PM
|
| Frank (A guest) Wrote in support of HV: "Humane Vitae, Yesterday, Today and Forever" Hi Frank. My reply is: Humane Vitae was wrong YESTERDAY. It is wrong TODAY and it will be wrong FOREVER. A flawed encyclical is a flawed encylical. Your argument seems to limit the meaning of sexual union to procreation. I do not accept this as the sole "meaning" of the sexual act. The sexual act as an expression of love is a legitimate purpose for sexual intercourse and it is especially here that your argument falls apart. You also admit that there are several perfectly legitimate reasons why a couple should not conceive a child. If this is so (and I do agree with you) then the couple should be free to use a calendar or a pill or any other non-abortive method in order to prevent conception. Your argument about "Trusting in God" makes no sense to me. I believe that the couple should trust in God to help them make the correct personal decision. Frank, you also attempted to use Holy Scripture to support your position. I do not see where the verses you quoted forbid the Catholic couple from using responsible methods of ABC. Thanks for writing, perhaps you would like to sign in as a member? Hugh San Francisco Bay Catholic http://www.sfbayc.com [This message was edited by Hugh on January 07, 2003 at 03:46 PM.] |
|
| Charles
| January 08, 2003, 09:07 AM
|
quote: No, Frank, you cannot say this. You cannot judge the faith of people and the honor they give to God in their lives and sexual acts from the structure of the act. quote: Equating a natural process with God's action is inappropriate here. Saying that a woman's monthly cycle is ordained by God to regulate sexual activity is quite a stretch. And, at any rate, it is human beings who close the door to life by choosing to have sex only during the infertile time. Note also that your implication that people who use artificial contraception somehow do not appreciate the gift that children are is unwarranted. That is not the issue. Most Catholics using artificial contraception do have children, and I'm sure they love and appreciate them just as much as do couples practicing NFP. |
|
| kevin
| January 19, 2003, 05:18 PM
|
| The woman^s cycle was ordained to help couples regulate births.How do you explain nature stopping menstruation when the woman breast feeds her baby or a woman being open to sex during the infertile times as well as the fertile times.This is not found in the animal world but only in humans. Only to Humans God said"it is not good for the man to be alone".Humans marry,have interpersonal relationships not animals who procreate nicely without any of these features.The human sciences have proven that what is human about human sexuality is that sexuality in humans is not primarily ordained for procreation(however important) but rather the pair bonding of man & woman.Obviously & in respect for the natural moral order,the cycles of fertility & infertility were implemented by the creator to help a couple harmonize the conjugal act of love & bonding with the responsible transmission of life.We are humans not animals ,who don^t encounter this.Humans have sexual relations after conception let alone after the child bearing years. NFP does not add or take away from the totality of the act.Orthodox Jews who try to live right down to the last letter of the law acknowledge this & use NFP when necessary.Hugh you got to get this thing that sex is only for procreation in humans out of your head,the empirical sciences & the experiences of married couples say otherwise.So the church teaches that with due respect to the moral law if they renounce their marital rites during days of natural fertility to avoid procreation for just motives & yet use their marital rites to maintain the pair bond & express their love during the infertile days,they indeed do so morally with respect to the natural moral order& nature^s design whom theGod established as such.They take advantage of a natural disposition that nature has allowed.It is up to man to understand how nature works. Remember in the second account of creation God said "it is not good for the man to be alone" before he said be friutful & multiply.How does a woman give Life? one book written by a catholic couple said.The response is in two ways they said, one is in the delivery room giving birth to a child ,the other is in the bedroom,where the two become "One Flesh".Here the conjugal act aids the man as well as the woman(the Unitive).Sex in humans has other meanings other than procreation.The debate is whether it is moral to act against this natural design by artificial means or to deem this natural design as absolute where therefore only NFP would be accepted because the integrity of the act is not comprimised& the biological laws inscribed in the bodies of man & woman respected.We all know where JP 11 stands on the issue. Regards Kevin | |
| Anon
| January 20, 2003, 08:22 AM
|
| Just a note to Frank and James, why would anyone admit to visiting the San Fransico Bay "catholic" website, let alone, publishing the link! And for James, why admit to reading anything by father McBrien? This website/priest preach the most outlandish trash. Any Catholic should have the formation to see them for what they are! | |
| moderator
Administrator | January 20, 2003, 11:41 AM
|
| anon, slamming a web site or a person's writings is
very poor debate, as is your question-begging remark about formation.
one could just as easily say that your formation must be poor if you
don't agree with fr. McBrien, who isn't in any trouble with the
Magisterium. try discussing ideas rather than using ad hominems and other fallacies. |
|
| James
Member | January 20, 2003, 09:49 PM
|
| Kevin, It is a bit of a stretch to say that God created the female cycle to limit family size. It is one thing to say that God created the cycle to create babies. It is quite another to say that God created it as His only Holy method of birth control. If this were so then we would see, I believe, thorough and extensive discussion of how to use NFP in the Bible, but we do not see this. We also do not see any mention anywhere as to couples of biblical times using NFP or anything like it. What you are saying is that science lead the Church to divine revelation of NFP sans the Bible and even Mother Church herself does not allow NFP for this reason. I personally have a problem with your logic. In fact I believe it more accurate to state that God never intended for couples to space there children at all, if we wish to go back to the ideal of The Garden. It is wonderful that breastfeeding leads to infertility for a time, but it does not work perfectly even for many women who use it perfectly ecologically as outlined by the Kippleys. (Personal experience noted.) If it is something that God oringinally meant to work perfectly, our fallen nature has detracted from that in the reality of every day life, as has everything that we experience in the realm of health. That is why people with no risk factors for cancer often unfortunately are afflicted with it, etc.. Regards- |
|
| Hugh
(hugh.oregan_NO_SPAM@pobox.com) Member | January 21, 2003, 11:54 PM
|
quote: Sorry Kevin, Please re-read my message. My point was that procreation is NOT the only legitimate purpose of sexual union. I am sorry that you did not understand this. Hugh www.sfbayc.com Hugh |
|
| Kevin
| January 22, 2003, 02:16 PM
|
| Thanks Hugh,sorry.----Kevin | |
| Kevin
| January 22, 2003, 02:50 PM
|
| I disagree James.If God did not intend Humans to space births or to help married couples get a break in being fruitful & multiply then he would of patterned our sexuality like those in the animal world.The female would only be open to sexual relations when she was fertile,which would be only for a short time during the month.Once the male would have impregnated her,she would have no more sexual interest.Or the female would be in Heat only twice a year like is the case with other primates.Nature I believe designed a way,God is the author of nature.Nature designs ways to help man,example magnetism & how metals when placed together cause a magnetic field & this enabled us to eventually discover the power of electricity & so on.God placed these things to be used by man.I am not saying people who practice non abortive means to regulate births are less catholic or off their rockers.But I can see nature helping man.Some old cultures I read discovered symptons(mucous excretions example) that made them aware of their fertility as well as infertility.Some women I^ve spoken to before told me in open honest discussions that they had this awareness.Dr Billings in his method speaks on how women with irregular cycles can still use NFP,if they truly know how.After the fall of man in Eden & with fornications & adultery paving the way ,the cycle of fostering conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life possibly could of been put in dissaray because if every woman knew exactly right away when she was fertile as well as infertile this could encourage more promiscuities but with natural experience & a conjugal life in a stable union such as marriage,the woman could figure out fully what nature has alloted.This is a theory. What does Frank Sinatra have to say about all this ? Just kidding,I read that post & I have to say I busted a gut laughing even if some people might of been offended.It was as smug as the real Sinatra.I guess that^s what you call satire. Regards | |
| Kevin
| January 22, 2003, 04:06 PM
|
| Sorry to post so quickly & clutter.But I do not believe that the "ideal" God had before the fall was for man & woman to blindly procreate without some type of brake when needed,again God first said"it is not good for man to be alone" before he said "be fruitful & multiply" in the second account of creation. Here we see a God who knows man needs a companion & lover,let alone mother to his children.There is no religion,let alone catholicism that teaches that to be fruitful & multiply means to blindly procreate left ,right & centre.Of course married couples are to be as generous as possible by what their means allow.God instituted marriage for humans & not animals.Of course before the fall circumstances were different.God actually walked with man.There was plenty for everyone. Be careful of the heresy of manichaeism that influenced Augustine.Sensuality is of God in the context of the spirituality of marriage.The Pope in his audience talks on sexuality described sexual relations in a loving marriage as a propensity in union in love with God. Check what Pope Pius XI said in 1930 "This mutual inward moulding of husband & wife,this determined effort to perfect each other,can in a very real sense.....be said to be the chief reason & purpose of matrimony..." The quality of relationship between a husband & wife sets the stage for a strong marriage & a foundation for a strong family. | |
| James
Member | January 22, 2003, 06:03 PM
|
| Kevin, I am not sure where in my post I mentioned anyone blindly procreating willy-nilly. In fact, I believe that if we lived in the ideal Garden of Eden that God originally intended for us, we would not even remotely concern ourselves with how much or how often we had children. We would be perfectly unselfish and loving and live in a world where we are completely provided for. Therefore, we would have no need to even consider that we might possibly need to space children. There would be no need to space children, our bodies and our circumstances would always work in perfect sync. This would not be procreating willy-nilly, this would be living in the perfect presence of love. We do not live in this world alas. We are fallen and our afflictions prior to the fall have not been removed. We suffer in ways that God probably never originally intended because of the fall of man. We have salvation and forgiveness however, which we can be thankful for. But it is ignorant to assume that all people can use NFP equally, when we all have things wrong with our body which were never intended by our creator because of our innate sinfulness. This is not Augustinian theology. This is saying that originally God intended for the unitive and procreative to work together in marriage perfectly. Because of our state, it now rarely does. This is not to say that all sex must be procreative to be Holy. I certainly do not believe that. It is to say, that we can never fully realize the fullness of the conjugal act as God intended because of our fallen state. Even in NFP couples use sex selfishly, which is a detraction from what God intended. Many times we think we are child spacing for good reasons, we probably are in some way really not being as fully loving as we could be. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.....Regards- |
|
| kevin
| January 23, 2003, 04:46 PM
|
| Even before the fall a woman would possibly have to take breaks from births with respect to children already born & the interpersonal relationship that exists between her & her mate.Not to mention her physical or physiological condition.Resources aren^t the only factor. I don^t see a woman giving birth & then getting pregnant a month later as a norm on a regular consistent basis.Women who breast feed regularly do not menstruate.A woman can not mensruate for over two years if she breast feeds daily or regularly.This has been featured prominently on shows that study human sexuality.Sure there are exceptions but the key word is exception & I^m not a medical doctor who can analyse the root cause or problem.It is not the norm. If one type of NFP does not work for one couple another natural method might do the trick.The major complaint with NFP is not that it can^t be figured out or is unreliable but the fact that the couple has to arrange their sex lives around the cycles wich can pose difficulty with respect to external conditions.A man may have to work long hours one week when his wife is naturally sterile but the time is not there for relations.On a different week when its not so chaotic,abstinence is called for cause the wife is fertile but now they can^t have relations unless they wan^t a child.Yes there can be unusual cases where it is very difficult to pinpoint the matter in question but you have to listen to your consciece & discuss with your spouse what then to do in a case like that.As far as NFP goes you take it one child as a time bearing in mind serious or good reasons.Naturally those who practice non abortive abc in good conscience do the same.Believe it or not NFP works in most cases regards | |
| James
Member | January 23, 2003, 10:40 PM
|
| Kevin, There appear to be two areas in which we disagree. The first one is our separate visions of the world prior to The Fall. I think my perspective is summed up in my previous statement:"There would be no need to space children, our bodies and our circumstances would always work in perfect sync." This precludes a concern for child spacing. Health would be perfect, family circumstances would be perfect, a need for a rest would be irrelevant for a woman in such ideal situations. A spacing might occur, but the couple would not be thinking about it our even desiring it one way or the other. That is perfect love. Furthermore, there is no indication in the Bible that Adam and Eve ever used anything remotely like NFP. If fertility awareness were that important I firmly believe we would see something, especially when you consider the Apostle Pauls thorough discussion of marital sexual morality, which is certainly of great importance. Something as important as NFP would need to be mentioned for it to take on equal importance. Your point about NFP working in all cases I believe is a selection bias found throughout studies supported by CCLI. The participants in successful NFP studies are always in excellent health and are not particularly concerned about having an additional child. When these couples inadvertantly wind up pregnant the persons conducting the study usually say that this is not a failure, but instead a case of the method working perfectly for this couple since they do not mind conceiving. I read it a bit differently. These studies show that for couples not particularly concerned about NFP, NFP may satisfy them as a method. It also shows that NFP couples are more willing to take risks using the method, than couples who use other forms of contraception. I'm not sure that's a good thing. The other point about NFP is that it requires things that busy stressed woman really cannot be expected to realistically do. Remembering to chart mucuos daily during a hectic week was just impossible for my wife and it means nothing less of her, it is just that she has other things on her mind. I could try to help her, but I was not always home to do that. Secondly, sleeping at least three hours with no interruption for accurate temperatures was another impossible task for my wife. We are constantly being awaked by our children at two hour intervals during their toddlerhood and preschool years. Our reasons for not using NFP have little to do with missing the infertile phase and extending our abstinence. Ours is more a mistrust of our data and the probability that without thorough charting and temperature readings we never had enough information to be certain about when my wife's infertile phase was. If we could use NFP well, and circumstances may change where we can, we would probably use FAM and contracept during those times in which we completely missed the infertile phase. So I respectfull disagree. I believe most couples do not use NFP, because they really do not trust NFP and their ability to use is effectively. Regards- |
|
| kevin
| January 25, 2003, 10:41 AM
|
| In Corinthians we read Chpt. 7 "Now concerning the
things about which you wrote..." "Stop depriving one another,except
by agreement for a time....& come together again lest satan tempt
you of your lack of self control. Now one of the questions the
Corinthians might of asked might have been the issue of spacing births
& the moral means to ahieve this.Paul responds that a couple can
legally & temporarily abstain from sexual relations by mutual
consent & then resume relations properly.The church which is
founded on the apostolic succession continues this theme that a couple
can temporarily abstain from sexual relations by mutual
consent(renouncing their marital rights during the fertile periods for
just reasons as is found in NFP or the natural cycle) & then have
sexual relations during the infertile time to manifest their affection
& safeguard their mutual fidelity.Paul though not married may of
been aware of temporary abstinence by Jews to avoid conception for good
reasons with respect to the natural cycle that Divine providence has
provided to help married couples foster conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life.Remember humankind doesn^t understand
things right away,it takes time & experience.The Church & the
western world believed that the earth was the centre of the unniverse
for centuries until new understanding & insight proved this
wrong(aka Gallileo).Thru bad biology in the mideval ages it was
believed that the male seed was human life itself but in due course
this error was proven wrong when new discoveries took place.Married
couples knew that nature herself has developed a way for conjugal acts
that involve true love with the responsible transmission of life. The menstrual cycle eliminates the egg that is present for a short time, natural sterility when a woman regularly breast feeds,mucous/temperature that shows signs of fertility.In some cultures a mother knows when her baby is going to go to the washroom just by instinct or the baby^s movements & brings the child to the proper facilities( I use this as an example because in poorer countries,diapers aren&t common)Experience,nature,Divine providence all help.We^ve come to uderstand this wonderful gift of nature whom we shall use as our instructor.You state their is no proof Adam & Eve didn^t at times practice when necesaarry NFP,but there is certainly no proof they didn^t.NFP is not contraception because it does not Add or Subtract to the Totality of the act.It does not impede the natural consequence of the natural act but keeps sexuality in tune with the author of creation.For just reasons couples can take advantage of this Natural Disposition that God the author of nature has created.Remember in the second account of creation first God said "it is not good for man to be alone'"for this cause a man leaves his mother & father & the two become one flesh".Here God shows concern on the unitive of conjugal love.It is written in Proverbs "May you wife^s breasts give you joy".tThe song of songs in the bible celebrates the sexual aspect of married love.They become one in natural intercourse where the catechism teaches is there "for the good of the spouses & the procreation & education of children". Humanae Vitae rightfully teaches that these two meanings are not separated with respect to the moral order in regards to the natural cycle.It^s there for a purpose.And was created by God (who else ?) as such.It is up to man to better understand nature.A lot of couples use NFP because it is not a intrusion to what is suppose to be natural.The key word to Natural family planning is the word Planning,not avoiding children for no good reason.Catholicism.orthodox judaism,even Islam condemn arificial methods because is not in tune with the natural moral order. I^m sure the apostle Paul would agree.He was once part of orthodox judaism which today hails NFP as the only natural means to regulate & plan.If you don^t accept this, then read up on conscience formation,& follow your conscience & have peace in your love &married/family life.But as John Paul Two stated regarding the pope defending Humanae Vitae & its teachings he quoted Paul^s letter to Tomothy 'But you,be self-possessed in all circumstances,put up with hardship,perform the work of an evangelist,fullfill your ministry".He^s a workhorse in defending Humanae Vitae,God Bless him. |
|
| Anon
| January 26, 2003, 01:21 PM
|
| If in respect to the totality of our union, we sometimes practice artificial birth control but in general we are open to life, is it ok if in totality I am monogamous except when I fool around with my neighbor’s wife? Puts a whole new face on the benefits of the totality argument doesn't it? | |